Q&A: Be Fruitful and Multiply
Be Fruitful and Multiply
Question
Hello, Rabbi.
Tosafot (Sanhedrin 59b) ask about what is stated there, that the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying was not said to the descendants of Noah: “This is surprising! How do we know that it was not said to the descendants of Noah? And if because it is not counted among the seven Noahide commandments — but it said earlier [58b] that positive commandments are not counted?” Is it possible to distinguish between an obligation to perform a concrete act (like taking a lulav and the like) and an obligation of general ‘involvement’ in a commandment (like walking in God’s ways and the like), and to say that the descendants of Noah are included only in mere involvement, based on the words of Rav Achai Gaon (She’iltot, 165): “The house of Israel is obligated to take wives, beget children, and engage in procreation, as it is written: ‘Take wives and beget sons and daughters’; and not only Israel, but even gentiles are commanded regarding procreation, as it is written: ‘And you, be fruitful and multiply.’” In that way Tosafot’s question is resolved well, since a commandment of this kind is not counted among the seven Noahide commandments, because this is a rational obligation, like a categorical imperative for the maintenance of the world. What do you think?
Thank you very much! Sabbath peace
Answer
That is a possible distinction, although I do not see an explanation for why it should be so. One could say a hundred other distinctions just as well, without any reason. Tosafot itself there explains that this is indeed derived from the fact that it was not counted among the seven Noahide commandments (and it also includes a passive element). I do not see why your distinction is preferable.
I am also not sure that your inference from the She’iltot is correct. It may be that he is not speaking about the conceptual definition of the commandment, but rather speaking descriptively: in practice, a person engages in procreation but does not “perform” it directly, since it comes about somewhat incidentally and is not entirely dependent on him. And we find similar language elsewhere, such as in the Talmud where a person will be asked: “Did you engage in procreation?”
Beyond that, the She’iltot does not imply that it distinguishes between Jews and the descendants of Noah. On the contrary, it adds the descendants of Noah together with Israel, and in its view they too are obligated in procreation.
This whole discussion concerns only that stage in the Talmudic passage where they assumed that this commandment really does not apply to the descendants of Noah. In practice, one should remember that at its root this commandment was said before the giving of the Torah, and it seems to me that it was not repeated afterward. The Talmud there says that in this respect only Israel was commanded. True, the Talmud says that according to Rabbi Yehuda we find only the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, but on 59b the Talmud itself addresses this and writes that this commandment was not repeated for Israel because “Return to your tents” was said for a different matter.
As for the matter itself, one could say that gentiles were not commanded because this is a matter of reasoning — why would I need a verse?! Still, simply speaking, even in Israel there is a rational basis because of “He created it to be inhabited,” and that is something different from being fruitful and multiplying. Perhaps the descendants of Noah are obligated in inhabiting the world, but not in procreation.
Discussion on Answer
If we identify the command to Adam with “He created it to be inhabited,” that aligns with my suggestion.
Thank you for the answer.
What I meant is whether one can distinguish between the command to be fruitful and multiply that was said to Adam and Noah, and the command to be fruitful and multiply that is halakhically binding, such that the first applies to the descendants of Noah and the second does not. The gain, in my humble opinion, from this explanation is twofold: (a) it clarifies the nature of the obligation for the descendants of Noah (and in line with the She’iltot), and otherwise it is difficult to understand the relationship between the command to Adam and Noah and the actual operative command. Similar to what the Rabbi wrote (https://mikyab.net/posts/73804) to explain along these lines Rashi on the Torah (Genesis 9:7), that according to the midrash one who neglects procreation is compared to a shedder of blood, because he nullifies the categorical imperative to populate the world. (b) It is said in Yevamot (62a) that according to Rabbi Yohanan, one who converted and had children while still a gentile has fulfilled his obligation of procreation, because “from the outset as well they were subject to procreation.” Tosafot ask there (s.v. “subject”): “But in chapter Four Death Penalties (Sanhedrin 59b and there) it seems that the descendants of Noah were not commanded regarding procreation?” Tosafot also ask (s.v. “Rabbi”) why according to Rabbi Yohanan he fulfills the obligation of procreation even though we have a general rule in all areas of Torah law that a convert who converts is like a newborn child. If we say that the descendants of Noah are inherently connected to the very ‘engagement’ in procreation, both questions are resolved מאליהן, of course. [According to this understanding, the novelty in the halakhic obligation is the practical laws that follow from procreation, such as taking an additional wife, and the like.]
Thank you very much!